nwnfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:RIP RPG
Oddities A few oddities I noticed while correcting the numerous language errors: # Going 200 km underground gets you to the Earth's mantle. That's a rather unstable place to conduct experiments. # Superman was created in 1932, long after the nineteenth century ended. # By definition, 22nd century technology cannot be developed in 2063. Whoever is in charge of writing this world's history may want to rethink some of these details. --The Krit 23:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC) :Thanks for the insight :Will fix the instances ASAP : :--Victor Lazlo Project Dev. Caster multiclass restrictions I find restriction #2 to be ambiguous. Is it saying that a wizard/sorcerer is not allowed and a druid/cleric is not allowed, or that a PC cannot combine primary arcane magic (either wizard or sorcerer) with primary divine magic (either druid or cleric), so a wizard/druid is not allowed? Or maybe both? --The Krit 18:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC) :Thank for the insight :) it is clearly not a clear rule. :The idea is not to mix any of the four magic classes with each other in order to create a more pure caster. : :In RIP RPG Wizards are the user of RIP energy in a scientific way, they must learn how to use the ambient energy to bend the laws of physics. : :Sorcerers are born with power and will expend the rest of their life learning how to control their powers. : :Druids are Dragons in disguise. : :Clerics are minions of a powerful Alien creature at its beck an call for its own purpose. : :--Victor Lazlo Project Dev. Level 1 rogues No pure rogues allowed? Yuck. (That's just one person's opinion, though.) --The Krit 18:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC) :Is because of the extra 16 skill points they get just for choosing Rogue at level one. :Skill points are a valuable commodity that I want players to value... I will endeavor to include the all in the module and make them all useful within the game. : :--Victor Lazlo Project Dev. ::It's your choice how you want to take my comment. You can try to make the case that a pure rogue is horribly unbalanced and needs to be reigned in, but convincing me of that is probably impossible. Or you can take my comment as feedback as to how some players will view this restriction — not something to argue, but something to consider. --The Krit 17:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC) :::And I do take your comment very seriously because you are right... A pure rogue may feel unfairly restricted but it is just because of the Game mechanics who gives 8* skill at level one for a rogue and no one else. ::: :::On the other hand Pick Pocket will not be nerf in any way (that gives rogues an amazing evil advantage). ::: :::Also they can combine with Shadowdancer or Druid/Shifter and get HIPS. ::: :::Because of the above and other considerations I can not just let them have those extra 16 skills points just for choosing Rogue at level one. ::: :::--Victor Lazlo Project Dev. (De-indenting so the discussion does not get cramped.) OK, as long as you realize this is just a discussion of the reasons for the restriction, not an attempt to sway anyone. I think making skills more valuable is a good thing, but I do not see why that supports restricting rogues. Rogues are a skill-based class, hence get twice the skill points of any other base class. Why allow them at all if skill points are so unbalancing? Taking rogue level 1 at character level 1 gets twice the skill points that one would get by taking ranger level 1. Taking rogue level 1 at character level 2 gets twice the skill points that one would get by taking ranger level 1. Why is the former so undesirable, yet the latter is not? --The Krit 21:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC) :Simple numbers :A level 1 Rogue gets 32 skills points :A level 1 Ranger gets 16 skills points :A level 1 wizard gets 8 skills points :A level 2 Rogue gets 8 skills points :A level 2 Ranger gets 4 skills points :A level 2 wizard gets 2 skills points :So what is the big deal with level 1 * 4 multiplier when everyone gets it anyways???... :The level 1 rogue gets 16 extra skills points! :Yes the level 2 rogue will get 4 more skills point than the Ranger and 6 more than the wizard and that is ok but to get those original 16 points is actually an exploit. Believe it or not it was fix on the manual for platinum edition. It indicates Rogues get 4 skills at level 1 and then go up to 8 per level. But the engine was never change so they still get the double DOUBLE for a quadruple number of skill points!!! :16 skills point will be nothing for a level 21 Rogue and he will still have more skill points that know what to do with by level 30! But at the low levels it makes it more of a fair playing field... Specially with hide / pickpocket and other nasty skills ;) :Also it will make fake keys to open lock doors practical item. Etc. Etc. :(Do you agree?) :--Victor Lazlo Project Dev. ::I am more likely to believe there was a typo in the manual than there was any attempt to change a rogue's skill points. The manual is filled with errors, so referring to that is unreliable. More reliable is the game, in which no change has been made. There is also the D&D 3.5 SRD, which is a re-balancing of the rules on which NWN is based (D&D 3.0), and rogues are given 32 skill points at level 1 there. :: ::One point to consider is that the quadruple skill points at level 1 allows a PC to maintain the allotted number of skills at maximum. A rogue is allowed to maintain 8 skills (plus intelligence modifier) at maximum levels. This includes maxing out that many skills at level 1. I find it rather inconsistent to say that maxing out 8 skills at level 1 is unbalancing, but maintaining the levels of 8 skills at later levels is perfectly acceptable. (A rogue needs 32 skill points at level 1 in order to be able to max out 8 skills.) :: ::Also relevant, I believe, is that there are only two base classes that lack both the fighter's attack progression and spellcasting. One of these is the monk, which gets a huge combat boost from its unarmed attack progression and free feats. The other is the rogue, which gets its balancing power boost from its large allotment of skills. Denying rogues their skill points causes them to come up short in comparison to the other classes. (They get to max out 4 more skills at level 1 than the other classes because they do not get to cast spells, do not get full base attack, have a limited selection of weapons and armor, and do not have a bunch of free feats to make up the difference.) --The Krit 15:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC) :::You are correct, the manual correction is a typo in the sense that it was never implemented into the game and therefore not true... Yes the manual does allowed for "pure" Rogues to max out 8 (+Int bonus) number of skills BUT what end up happening is that Rogue gets mix with other classes, like fighter for example, in order to get better combat playability... Also the story of NWN is that, unlike PnP where most DM are only concern from level 1 to 20, the game run up to level 40... Have you ever seen a Pure Level 40 rogue? I have never seen one... Actually the only pure thing I have ever seen is a pure level 40 wizard. :::Anyways so since the "pure" rogue will 99.99% of the time have a second class, taking the level one rogue for those skill points and then the secondary class later is just an exploit! But your argument is so good that an exemption to the rule is here duly noted where IF the player plans to have ALL 40 levels dedicated to Rogue, then they should be able to select Rogue at level one, and a DM will assist those players by moving their Character from the Limbo Area back into the Game World even if they have selected Rogue as an starting class! =D --Victor Lazlo Project Dev. ::::No, I have not seen a pure level 40 rogue yet, but that is because the characters in question are not level 40 yet -- one is level 36, and the other level 21, but both are intended to become level 40 rogues. :P --The Krit 03:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC) :::*That is better, but still means that one cannot create a rogue/shadowdancer (or any rogue/prestige class combo) without a second base class. --The Krit 21:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC) After some considerations, including the fact that the community is shrinking somewhat, a new player could easily make a rogue and when told "sorry you can't be a level one rogue" that player may just leave before giving the server a try :( With that in mind the no level one rogue rule is no longer applicable. Classes But I am left wondering.... if the problem you have is with people taking a level of rogue then switching to another class, why don't you address that issue directly, instead of singling out rogues? You have minimum class levels for the second and third classes, why not the first? (By the way, another oddity I noticed — but decided against mentioning at the time — is that a 1/10/29 monk/druid/shifter fits perfectly well within your rules, even though many people consider it somewhere in the "super cheesy" to "exploit" range.) --The Krit 03:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC) :Yes but those minimums have to be achieved by level 40... So you could take level 1 rogue for the skills then 4 of fighter for weapon specialization and then 10 of WM and then back to fighter then rogue and in the end have a 25 rogue, 10 WM, 5 fighter and be legal EXCEPT that you took the first level of rogue instead of fighter just to get those extra skill points. :Not sure how the 1/10/29 monk/druid/shifter is legal? Assuming you count your Shifter as your Primary class with 29 level, then your Druid becomes your secondary class with 10 but monk with just one become illegal since you need 5 levels in your tertiary class. The Next DM who sees you at level 37 only needs to count and realize the most you would ever get is 4 levels of monk to BOOM set you back to level one... Ouch!!! --Victor ::LOL ok I got it why it was not clear... I think I fix that, what is important is not the order so much as the fact you need to have at least a 10/30 or 5/10/25 distribution (to warranty you are not just pick up a class for a specific bonus it gives you at level one).--Victor :*No, I would count monk as the primary class, as that is the class taken first. (Primary = first class taken, secondary = second class, and tertiary = third class is a fairly common understanding of those terms.) But I believe I see what you intended now. How is the latest revision? --The Krit 12:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC) :::It is very good =D Thank You! I am Glad I made this wikia page ;) :::I will simplify that rule to just a minimum of 5 levels in every class taken... I think player will understand that better --Victor DM vs. GM I forgot to make a note here about an edit I made last week, specifically converting "GM" to "DM". There are some worlds in which "Game Master" makes more sense than "Dungeon Master". However, at the moment the only use of this term in this article is a few references to the rules enforcers. In essence, the term is only used in passing here, so I think the clarity of being consistent with D&D terminology outweighs considerations of consistency with the setting. (The point being that people used to D&D terms will more quickly recognize "DM".) This was not an attempt to force terminology on RIP RPG, but to help out the readers of the article. --The Krit 22:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC) :Anything that improve understanding of the article is immensible appreciated... Thanks Victor Lazlo 01:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Thanks The Krit for your help editing :) I plan to add a lot of more content over the Christmas break. I guess I should start to break some of it into multiple pages instead of one giant one ;) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Overlords Why was "overlord" changed to "Őœļą Ĉřōņ"? The latter looks like gibberish, with the lack of English letters. (Had it been an anonymous edit, I would have thought it was vandalism.) --The Krit 21:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC) :I pass the original work by one of my editors and she indicated that "Overlord" has being used to death. Plus the race is from a whole new Planet (if not galaxy). They should have a name that is unpronounceable by human tongs. With that in mind I came with the name Ocela Cron :) It is something not used by anyone yet so it is my intellectual property and by using all those characters I believe it has enough of an alien feel to it. In the end they will become a focal point for adventures (ether for or against them). My editor also indicated that they need a lot of history so my next post will have their background (beta release). :Thank you though for noticing and be there to protect the work from vandalism :) : Victor Lazlo 02:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Scripted vs. unscripted Is there a reason for distinguishing so strongly between the scripted and unscripted restrictions? Wouldn't the only people that concerned about how restrictions are enforced be the ones trying to get around them? I'd think everyone else would appreciate a single list of restrictions. --The Krit 13:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Style This article makes heavy use of second person pronouns, which goes against the manual of style. Could someone fix this? --The Krit 20:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC) :Will do next week :) Victor Lazlo 06:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Lowercasing & better section levels Sorry Krit I disagree with the lower casing and I set the section levels high because I wanted the line to separate each section as they develop into bigger subsection. Like Always I do appreciate your impute :) Thank you The Krit :) I know the continent names are not the adequate ones but remember that the story take place 200 years in the future so names do change ;) Primeval Atom 03:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC) * Let me start by apologizing for changing "Orient" to "Asia" in a minor edit — that's something that should not have been flagged as minor. (Changing "Euro" to "Europe" possibly also should not have been flagged as minor, but that could be seen as a typo.) I should have separated that into a second edit, in case you were ignoring minor edits. : I still don't see why you would want to use article-level titles (single equals sign) for the sections. The horizontal line you mentioned only shows up for some skins, and when it does show up, it tends to give misleading visual clues, such as making "Restrictions" to appear to be a new section, rather than a subsection of "Other specifications". (There is a reason why subsection-level titles (triple equals signs) do not get that line in the Monaco skins.) If you feel the need for additional article-level titles, maybe that's a sign that the page should be broken up into additional articles? If not, I guess they stay article-level titles unless there's a consensus against it. : : Finally, there's the lowercasing, and for that I refer you to NWNWiki:Manual of style where it states "Only the first word of article (and section) names should be capitalized unless it's a proper noun." Since lowercasing section names is the established convention, I'm inclined to restore the lowercasing unless you have a good reason against it. --The Krit 19:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC) ::Didn't know that... Thanks once again The Krit :) Orient and Euro are part of the world Idea so they have to stay but I will (if not already done) fix the lowercasing and the subheading levels ;) Primeval Atom 00:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC) ::: Looks good. I apologize again for slipping those name changes in with everything else. I do try to make material changes like that in separate edits to make it easier for others to review, but I guess my mind was elsewhere when I did that. That might also be why I thought of them as typo & oversight rather than as features of the future you've written. --The Krit 19:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC) I thought I should point out (for the benefit of anyone else reading this) that this is not (at least I hope it's not) a case of me dictating what has to be done. I just gave my reasons for what I had done, and apparently those reasons were persuasive enough. I'm bringing this up as a reminder that people should be as unafraid to question any changes I make as I am in making those changes in the first place. (It seems some people have gotten the idea that I'm somehow "in charge", but when it comes to decision time, I get one vote, just like everyone else.) --The Krit 19:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC) :The Krit you are a very good Admin. your insight has help me and I am sure will continue to help me tremendously :) Thank you :PS: Could I interest you with a part time job this summer??? The major inner workings of the module will be lay down this summer and all help will be hugely appreciated. :If interested please e-mail me at PrimevalAtom@riprpg.net --Primeval Atom 00:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Background traits Each background trait has been linked as if there is going to be a page for each. Is there really more to say about these than what's already in the article? --The Krit 18:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Is there really a reason to link each background traits? That just create a lot of wanted page, also the description is already there. I don't see why keep these wanted link. --ILKAY 04:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC) :Ok yeah I agree and I removed the linked to pages that do not exist :) (Not sure why they were there on the first place) :( Primeval Atom 18:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Not right place for advertisement I don't like when creators writes about his own creation there. It's definitely advertisement and the fact that this world is not completed yet makes this article to be out of topic. There is place for this called nwvault, you know? ShaDoOoW : One reason for the existence of the "Gameworlds" category is to allow people to advertise their creations (as long as the advertisement takes the form of a wiki article). In fact, such advertisements were solicited at one point: BioForum link. I suppose "not completed yet" could be a concern, but as long as it's a real project, I don't see the harm. --The Krit 10:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC) :: Wow ShaDoOoW not sure where that came from ?:( Maybe you would like to play in Rip RPG right away and the fact it is not up yet has upset you but let me reassure you this project will be up and on schedule ;) As I iron out all the working details I have receive very valuable advice from other people and that has helps me work out a more complete Beta module. Therefore I will have less bugs to fix once the server is up and running and less conflicting messages to players, like when rules change after players have made characters up :( I am trying to avoid that by writing the rules down here and see what feedback I get from the community about them. Primeval Atom 04:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Other specs The "Other specifications" section used to look like a quick summary of the server, which has some value. The recent additions of paragraphs into this "quick list" kind of defeats that usefulness. It would look better to have a single descriptive sentence or phrase in the list, with the details deferred to later sections. --The Krit 16:55, April 8, 2010 (UTC) : Yes I guess I am putting to many details... The page is a work in progress and I will streamline it soon. Primeval Atom 07:07, April 18, 2010 (UTC)